The authorities have intentioanlly created the intrigue over a possible non-signing of the EU-Armenia framework agreement to later present its signing as the “diplomacy's triumph”, according to an expert in international affairs.

Speaking to Tert.am, Hovhannes Igityan highlighted the priorities in the deal, which he said do not essentially differ from the 1994-1995 Partnership and Association Agreement.

“All the clauses which could have prevented Armenia from signing [the deal] have been excluded from the Association Agreement. To put more plainly, the entire economic part, which is in the Association Agreement and which was very important for Armenia, has been practically removed. Instead, transport, energy development and other projects have been incorporated into it to meet the demands of the 21st century now. Yes, we have the bitter experience of non-signing, but the authorities themselves have provoked the intrigue to represent the [new document’s] signing in November as a victory,” he commented.

Meantime, the expert agreed that Armenia’s continuing membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) restricts the country’s chances of looking for alternative markets.

“Armenia, unfortunately, remains satisfied with what it has now; moreover, it has absolutely no right to take other steps within the EEU frameworks,” he added.

Asked to comment on the European Union’s position on the existing format and its possible desire to not eventually lose influence upon Armenia, the expert highlighted the need of differentiating between western and Russian approaches.

“The principles which the EU pursues do not imply pressure upon Asian or Muslim countries. On the contrary, it tries to find a point of compromise allowing for cooperation,” he said, noting that all the agreements and treaties with the EU focus on the concept of cooperation.

He said that despite the failed Association Agreement, the EU is heading towards cooperation with Armenia, emphasizing the principle of sovereignty of states.

“What the EU is looking upon is to what extent a specific country can digest the model, principles and values it pursues to later propose a cooperation format. It takes from a country what it cannot possibly at a specific moment,” he added.